Top Court Quashes Arizona Voter Law

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court on Monday delivered another rebuke to Arizona's aggressive efforts to combat illegal immigration, ruling that the state violated federal law when it added a proof-of-citizenship requirement to a federal voter-registration form nearly a decade ago.

Arizona violated the federal "Motor Voter" law when it added a proof-of-citizenship requirement to standard voter registration forms intended for use nationwide, the Supreme Court held Monday. Jess Bravin reports.

The ruling, by a 7-2 vote, comes a year after the justices struck down most of a separate Arizona law targeting illegal immigrants and weeks after a federal judge ruled that the sheriff in Phoenix was improperly using racial profiling against Latinos.

The high court cases reinforce that in areas where Washington holds constitutional authority—over immigration and, in Monday's case, the rules for federal elections—states may not override Congress's judgment.

More

Arizona officials including Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, have long wrangled with the federal government over how to deal with illegal immigration in the state. State officials say they have had to take matters into their own hands because they say federal enforcement of illegal crossings from neighboring Mexico is lax.

Ms. Brewer in 2010 signed the state's tough immigration law known as SB 1070, which included a provision that would have made it a state crime for immigrants to fail to carry federal registration papers proving legal status. That provision and others were rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court last year, although the court held that people stopped for other reasons can be questioned about their immigration status.

The latest Supreme Court case involved a state initiative, approved by voters in 2004, that required proof of citizenship when Arizonans sought to register to vote under the "motor voter" law, a 1993 federal statute formally known as the National Voter Registration Act. That proof could be a passport or copy of a birth certificate. Under the federal law, which among other things allowed individuals to register to vote when getting a driver's license, registrants only needed to sign a form attesting they were eligible to vote, under penalty of perjury.

Arizona's attorney general, Tom Horne, said that in one year, more than 200 people were caught having registered to vote without holding citizenship.

ENLARGE

Residents line up in Phoenix on Election Day in 2012. The Supreme Court said Monday the state's proof-of-citizenship requirement violated federal law.
The Arizona Republic / Associated Press

But Monday's Supreme Court opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia said the Arizona state law interfered with Congress's prerogative to set election laws. The 1993 federal law, he said, "forbids states to demand that an applicant submit additional information beyond that required by the federal form."

"For two decades, the Motor Voter law has made it dramatically easier for Americans to register to vote by instituting a standard, uniform voter registration form nationwide," said Laughlin McDonald of the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the organizations that represented challengers to the Arizona law. The ruling "reaffirms the principle that states may not undermine this critical law's effectiveness by adding burdens not required under federal law."

Still, the decision allows state officials to seek permission from the federal Election Assistance Commission to modify the form for use within Arizona, and to sue if they believe the commission improperly rejects or fails to act on the request.

"The court has laid out a clear pathway to victory," said Mr. Horne, the state attorney general, in an interview Monday. "I expect us to win." Mr. Horne said fighting for the state's proof-of-citizenship provision is important to protecting the integrity of its voting process.

He added that "anybody who wants to vote illegally is going to ask for the federal form" instead of the state form.

Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, who oversees elections in the state, said he was disappointed in the ruling and said he supports the state's plan to pursue approval from the federal election panel, as well as further litigation.

Arizona hasn't struck out completely at the Supreme Court. In 2011, the justices upheld by a 5-3 vote a measure stripping business licenses from employers that repeatedly hire illegal immigrants.

The National Voter Registration Act provides a form that voters can use to register for federal elections in any state—and requires that state officials "accept and use" it, whether or not they also provide their own specially designed forms.

Arizona argued that it did accept and use the federal form. It said its proof-of-citizenship requirement complemented federal law.

Justice Scalia disagreed. True, "a merchant's notice that he will accept Visa credit cards does not mean that he will not require in addition personal identification," Justice Scalia said when summarizing his opinion from the bench Monday. But in the context of the motor voter law, the term reflects "an official mandate to accept something for a given purpose," he continued.

Arizona remains free to cross-check information that registrants supply on the federal form to ensure

its accuracy, the court said. And Justice Scalia noted that the Election Assistance Commission approved a similar evidence-of-citizenship provision requested by Louisiana, suggesting the panel would be hard-pressed to explain why Arizona shouldn't also receive approval.

"The Court reads an ambiguous federal statute in a way that brushes aside the constitutional authority of the States and produces truly strange results," Justice Alito wrote. He said it was odd that the state's own voter-registration forms could require proof of citizenship while the federal form couldn't.

President Barack Obama's administration backed the voters and groups challenging the Arizona law.

Democrats in Arizona have sought to mobilize Latino voters by challenging Republican-led measures to crack down on illegal immigration. Those efforts resulted in more Democrats elected to local offices but haven't produced a sea change. Arizona voters haven't sent a Democrat to the U.S. Senate since 1988 and last voted Democratic in a presidential election in 1996.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.